On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 01:32:00 +0200, Laurens Holst
<lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> As I said, it /could/ be done with just this, letting source order (CSS
> cascading) take care of it, but it wouldn’t be convenient at all.
>
I believe it would be convenient. Let the source order handle the
fallbacks indeed (with the fallback code apparently in the beginning, and
the more advanced ones are put afterwards. We just have to make sure the
older browsers don't understand the syntax of the latter block so they
wouldn't use portions of it that it can understand. Future user-agents
won't be adversely affected, as they will have adapted the css syntax.
Making it anymore complicated will be the thing that is not convenient if
you ask me.
Also, tying big chunks to a required element is the authors choice, and if
the author wants to require all the features in his CSS to be implemented
and provides no fallback CSS otherwise, it is his fault. I and you
wouldn't advise this, and his code would not be understandable by CSS2
generation anyway. There are many things we do not advise in CSS but they
can be done indeed. The authors should be encouraged to use only small
blocks for required attribute, and that is probably going to be the case.
The author can already feed different css files to agents using 'handheld'
'screen' 'print' so it would be his/her wrong decision to try to keep
everything in one CSS file and make it clumsy and big.
But it is good that we all seem to want solving this feature-dependent CSS
coding problem.
What I wonder is how and when this requested feature would be considered
by W3? What is the procedure of them accepting or rejecting a proposed
feature request?
--
Emrah BASKAYA
www.hesido.com